tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post1181709472269391842..comments2024-03-18T17:10:35.838+00:00Comments on The IPKat: That (es)citalopram patent againVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-77369107842433661462009-04-17T14:05:00.000+01:002009-04-17T14:05:00.000+01:00"PatLit has obtained a full English translation of..."<I>PatLit has obtained a full English translation of the decision.</I>"<br /><br /><A HREF="http://patlit.blogspot.com/2009/04/insight-into-dutch-costs.html" REL="nofollow">at their site</A>.<br /><br />Would like to comment on it but very busy for the next couple of days.gygeshttp://nodeinthenoosphere.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-33430721493885630932009-04-15T10:57:00.000+01:002009-04-15T10:57:00.000+01:00I'm also looking forward to the English translatio...I'm also looking forward to the English translation.<br /><br />It is very difficult to get a clear picture of the dispute from what we've been told so far.<br /><br />Reading between the lines and going back to <A HREF="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2007/1040.html" REL="nofollow">Generics (UK) Ltd & Ors v H Lundbeck A/S</A> [2007] EWHC 1040 (links courtesy of IPKat) I would guess that the dispute is one of <I>second guessing what one skilled in the art would make of regioselectivity</I> (phew, deep breath).<br /><br />That is, which alcohol of the intermediate diol ( <A HREF="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2007/1040(image12).png" REL="nofollow">http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2007/1040(image12).png</A> ) is mesylated?<br /><br />I am guessing that the dispute is between the degree to which the diol is mesylated on the benzyl position and where it <I>could</I> be mesylated (ie on the tertiary alcohol position).<br /><br />This opens up another technical dispute. If mesylation occurs at the tertiary alcohol then shouldn't a tertiary ammonium species form? which would subsequently go on to form the required product due to the double inversion???<br /><br />In other words, one could speculate, pointlessly and ad tedium.<br /><br />Translation, anyone?gygeshttp://nodeinthenoosphere.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86268656926964946382009-04-15T08:40:00.000+01:002009-04-15T08:40:00.000+01:00Well, I'm all agog.
Fascinating stuff.
As I comm...Well, I'm all agog.<br /><br />Fascinating stuff.<br /><br />As I commented on this forum regarding the UK decision, I am worried about such big guns opining on what and what is not obvious to the person of ordinary skill.<br /><br />Here we have the HOD of Organic Chemistry at Oxford crossing swords with his predecessor about the meaning of the predecessor's own writings. These guys are not anywhere near close to being of ordinary skill... <br /><br />How exactly can they inform a court what our hypothetical skilled person would think concerning Baldwin's rules when they themselves can't agree on what his rules mean?<br /><br />Now it is bad enough getting such heavy weights into the courtroom, no matter their exact identities, but surely it is even more worrying when Jack Baldwin is asked to opine on what his own rules say? He should be the last person to ask, since he so obviously does not have an impartial view about what his own rules say (as opposed to what he meant them to say).<br /><br />Nobody brings in parliamentary draughtsmen into court after all, when interpreting statutes, to quiz them on why they chose to phrase something the way they did. <br /><br />I'd love to see a full English translation.<br /><br />LukeLuke Ueda-Sarsonnoreply@blogger.com